This article iswritten inCanadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour,centre,travelled,realize,analyze) and some terms may be different or absent from othervarieties of English. According to therelevant style guide, this should not be changed withoutbroad consensus.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofCanada articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating toelections,electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visitour project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in theTop 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
I believe the decision to remove bold formatting from all recent Canadian elections raises an important issue, and I'd like to point out a logical fallacy behind the reasoning for this change.
Initially, the bold type was removed from the last two Canadian elections due to concerns that it could be "used for partisan purposes." However, it now appears that this change has been extended to all subsequent elections, even when the party with the most votes and most seats remains the same. This is agenetic fallacy—the formatting is being dismissed based on the perceived motivations of some users, rather than evaluating the formatting itself on its merit. The bold type simply highlights the factual winner in terms of votes and seats, and its purpose is to present clear, objective information, not to endorse a particular political narrative.
Furthermore, this change is inconsistent with how election results are handled in other countries. For example, pages on elections from countries like the UK or the US continue to use bold formatting for the party with the most votes and seats, regardless of whether it's the same party. The removal of bold formatting for Canadian elections, then, creates an arbitrary double standard, which risks appearing selective or politically motivated, rather than being based on a neutral and consistent rule.
If Wikipedia is committed to neutrality and consistency, the bold formatting should be applied uniformly across all election pages, regardless of whether the results are contentious or subject to partisan interpretation. Altering this based on perceived political implications undermines the encyclopedia’s goal of providing clear, impartial information.Faronnorth (talk)02:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy enough to find the info elsewhere in the article; bolding the results didn't seem to matter to most editors until the winning party did not get the largest share of the popular vote.G. Timothy Walton (talk)03:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see there’s any justification for treating the Canada infobox differently from those of other countries. If no one can provide a reasonable answer, let's just make it consistent with other election articles.Greenknight dv (talk)05:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We had the "shouldn't be different from other countries" argument used for including outgoing leaders in the 2025 election infobox, and it turned out to be only some countries, mainly those the UK editor(s) had worked on. It's first appearance in Canadian election articles followed shortly after the 2019 election, giving the appearance it was done solely to highlight a mismatch in votes vs. seats.G. Timothy Walton (talk)13:39, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say there needs to be consistency. If getting the most seats in a Canadian election is perceived as "winning" it by the media, then it makes sense for that to be emphasized through bolding. Just like for the other countries mentioned. In this regard there is no question that we should bold a party winning a majority of seats. I tend to be less of a fan of doing this for elections where the party winning a plurality of seats did not win a majority, and I think a general RfC for this question could be useful. In any case, there is no compelling case for treating this election any differently from e.g.2010 United Kingdom general election.Gust Justice (talk)07:43, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bolding the number highlights the most important value: 'Seats won', making it stand out among the figures for 'Last election', 'Seats before', and 'Seat change'. But that's not the only benefit. The key issue here isconsistency with election infoboxes from other countries. You still haven't explainedwhy Canada should be treateddifferently.--Greenknight dv (talk)16:06, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The last time I checked the claim that the British way of doing it was consistent, I found it wasn't consistent with election articles for some other countries. Nor does the argument that bolding highlights the most important value stand as a valid argument as the party with the most seats is already highlighted by being first in position.G. Timothy Walton (talk)16:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is a valid argument if you understand. I didn’t say it would stand out to the other parties. I said the figure of seats won would stand out among other figures from the same party that comes first in the rankings. The same argument applies to the figure of popular votes and its percentage, regardless of whether they pertains to the same party or not. There are people who want to look for these figures at a glance, but you kept reversing changes made by others without providing justified explanations. As far as I know, bolding is a common practice in articles about elections in the US, UK, France, Germany, and Australia.Greenknight dv (talk)01:25, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And you keep making changes without providing justified explanations beyond "that's the way we do it elsewhere", even though it's not done everywhere. I understand your argument but disagree with you as to its validity. Every so often somebody comes to one of these Canadian election pages and tries to make the changes you want, and every time it's been argued against by editors who actually do significant work on these pages.G. Timothy Walton (talk)02:26, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Chiming in here, I additionally disagree with removing the bolding. There is no conceivable reason to remove the bolding. Its a clear visual aid that signifies that the party won/formed government, and removing it for specific articles makes no sense. The Liberals still won the election overall, even if they lost the popular vote, as they still won the most seats. -Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message ·contributions)22:33, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The winning party being first in position doesn't mean anything. The results not being bolded still breaks precedent with a hell of a lot of other election articles, including the articles covering elections held in places like the U.S., Australia, the United Kingdom, and India. There's no valid reason I can think of to not bolding the results. It doesn't somehow violate neutrality either. -Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message ·contributions)02:27, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't break precedent in Canadian federal election articles; instead, adding itignores precedent in this series of articles. We disagree as to the validity of arguments in favour of bolding.G. Timothy Walton (talk)22:29, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't precedent anymore whennumerous editors have added the bolding. If numerous editors have added the bolding, it means that that precedent is no longer there. People want the bolding. Otherwise they wouldn't keep adding it. Disagree with it all you want, but the editors have clearly spoken, including myself. Bolding is better. -Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message ·contributions)00:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That argument assumes that thenumerous editors aren't new tothis article series, which they (almost?) always are; ignorance of precedent does not create a new precedent. Bolding isnot betterhere, something that's been reiterated in archived discussions by experienced editors of Canadian federal election articles.G. Timothy Walton (talk)01:29, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief, indeed. "Ignore precedents because they were already established", to paraphrase the middle sentence. A few newly arrived editors changing something they don't like does not establish consensus; a lack of overwhelming denial in a discussion does not establish a consensus. The fact I and others don't feel like edit-warring does not make your positionthe consensus.G. Timothy Walton (talk)02:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When numerous editors rebuke attempts to remove the bolding, it is clear that it is not what editors want, including myself. It doesn't matter if they'renewly arrived or not, they're still Wikipedia editors. They are only trying to improve articles. -Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message ·contributions)02:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And when numerous editors change it back, they're only trying to prevent the article being made worse. And there were multiple editors who tried to change your bolding back, but apparently none of us count.G. Timothy Walton (talk)02:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Making the results use a bold font to visually indicate that a party either won the popular vote, or seats, or both, is not making the article worse. It is quite literally just keeping the consistency used by other election articles. Canada election articles arenot special. They do not get special treatment when other election articlesdo have the results in bold font.
And no, there wasn't. There was one editor who reverted my changes, and then another editor who re-instated them. You can disagree with it all you want but I saw the edit history. There was more editors trying to add, or re-instate, the bolding than there were people reverting it. Clearly that's a sign that there is consensus among editors that they want it. You, respectfully, don't get special treatment just because you're experienced, your opinion doesn't suddenly outweigh the opinion of other editors, even if they lack experience. That just isn't how Wikipedia works. -Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message ·contributions)03:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neither does your opinion. Obviously the editors who have removed the bolding disagree with you as to whether it makes an article worse, or that it gave the appearance of partisan motivation for its use. This article has spent much more time without bolding results than it has with it. No amount of edit-warring will magically turn your recent edits into an established precedent or consensus. Did you bother looking at the entire edit history or just the recent revert cycle?
Yeah, and numerous people have commented in various discussions, including this one, that the bolding is better. Also, it does not signify "partisan motivation". The people who suggest that are reaching very far to come up with that because there is nothing partisan about bolding the results to indicate results.
Also, it doesn't matter if the article has spent more time without it than with it, because it lacking bolding very clearly shows a lack of consistency among hundreds if not thousands of other election articles.
And a precedent already existed forCanadian federal election articles, but apparently that doesn't count because it's not what's used for other countries, or whatever the rationalization is for denying its existence.G. Timothy Walton (talk)04:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, who cares if they're new? Experienced Wikipedia editors don't hold any more sway than an inexperienced editor does. All Wikipedia editors are equal. Mostly everyone who edits Wikipedia does so to make the encyclopedia better. You basically saying that inexperienced editors aren't allowed to or shouldn't be able to change things, is insane. -Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message ·contributions)01:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, not what I'm saying. If an editor changes somethingon a page they're not familiar with that does not set a new precedent, it breaks existing precedent.G. Timothy Walton (talk)02:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, what is the purpose of bolding? Can you answer this simple question? Why are we bolding a party that did not even go into government in1925 Canadian federal election? What did it "win"? The infobox already makes it clear that it came out in first place, as it is shown first. What additional information does the bolding provide? The only arguments you keep bringing are "other articles do it" (beware ofWP:OTHERSTUFF here) and "there is a consensus for bolding" (Where? There was no RfC. You keep rebuking all other voicesagainst the bolding, which are not few. I cannot see an apparent consensus in favour of bolding). And it is what G. Timothy Walton says: the absence of bolding was the existing precedent and the previous consistent version until someone came and added the bolding.Impru20talk07:39, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just spotted this discussion and, after reading it, I do not see it as clear as others why the bolding should remain. Yeah, I agree that consistency is important, but what's the actual purpose of bolding the "winner"? Being the most voted party hardly means anything by itself (in a parliamentary system, a party can form a government without being the party with the most seats; see1925 Canadian federal election, which has the awkward situation of the party in bold representing a party that did not form the government). Sure, it gives an advantage to that party by frequently giving it the first try in forming a government, but that is already highlighted by the party being shown first in the infobox. There is no 1st score prize for the "winner". That the main argument for the bolding in this discussion is thatsimilar stuff is done for other countries does not mean that it is theright course of action, and I think a debate on the actual merits of bolding should be carried out.
Also, I guess that this should have been a RfC, considering how this has seemingly gone unnoticed by multiple users (such as myself) editing the articles, and also considering that there was a December 2024 proposal to open a RfC.Impru20talk15:49, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we should do away with bolding. There's really no reason to do it beyond aesthetics — parties are already ordered in these result tables in order of most seats to least seats, so the column placement already tells you "the winner". So nine times out of ten, it's redundant. But that tenth time, when one party wins the most seats but another wins the most votes, can become a problem. Because after conditioning readers to think of bold as "the winner", splitting that bold across two parties very easily reads we're trying to highlight a discrepancy and suggest a party does not truly have a mandate. As Impru20 noted, it'sespecially problematic in cases like1925 Canadian federal election or2017 British Columbia general election, where the second-place party actually formed government (due to an alliance with the third party) — again, after making readers think bold means "the winner", the first read on this is that one party won and then got cheated out of government. I'm sure nobody isactually trying to imply this, but that's nevertheless what bolding suggests. —Kawnhr (talk)20:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. It is more misleading than helpful. The only arguments in favour of bolding have been to "keep consistency with other articles" (but consistency can be achievedwithout the bolding as well, just remove it from the other articles) and that "Its a clear visual aid that signifies that the party won/formed government" (which is a wrong take, as has been explained, since some times we are actually bolding parties that end up going straight into opposition).Impru20talk17:11, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We should have a proper RfC, but I think it properly belongs in one of the WikiProject pages, either Canada or Elections. And have it remain visible instead of going into archives, because I'm sick of seeing issues raised again and again despite there being an earlier consensus now invisible to new editors.G. Timothy Walton (talk)18:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been considering adding data from the 2021 CES to this page, as a sort of exit poll equivalent.
I've already gone through the data and got the crosstabs, but not sure how much of it to put on here, as there is quite a lot of data and it would take up a considerable amount of space to put all of it here.
I'll start with just some demographic data, let me know if I should add something else.
Thoughts on changing the Christian religion section to just 'Catholic' and 'Other Christian', as some of the denominations have quite small samples. Or is it better to show the data verbatim?WatchfulRelic91 (talk)18:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting. Is it possible to split out some results between Quebec and the Rest of Canada for some of the larger samples? I'm not talking a total drill-down, or more granular geographic splits, as many of the smaller groupings would lead to massive margins of error.Raellerby (talk)23:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about this as well, not sure how to do it logistically though. It would either require two separate tables, or adding columns for regions (at least 13 more columns).WatchfulRelic91 (talk)14:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To contrast with previous Canadian Federal election articles, I would like to remove Maxime Bernier & the People's Party from the sidebar. Seeing as they have no seats or representation, it is strange that the People's Party is included in the sidebar without any representation within the House of Commons. It makes sense for Maxime Bernier to be in the 2019 article seeing as his party lost representation, however there are many other parties within Canada who are not displayed alongside those who won sitting seats. We must ask ourselves if Maxime Bernier will be displayed on every election going forward, and if not, why is he displayed here?— Precedingunsigned comment added by198.98.104.165 (talk)11:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The party got nearly 5% of the vote(much more than the Greens who actually got seats) and was clearly impactful even without winning a seat.331dot (talk)15:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to receiving 5% of the vote in the last election, PPC meets all Elections Canada requirements for participation in the Leadership Debates in 2025. To exclude them would be seen as partisan and in violation ofWP:NPOV. We report notable facts, not gatekeep or curate them.Arkenstrone (talk)17:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
.svg)
